Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding substance: it discloses the read perspective ('as a signed-in reader sees it'), itemizes returned content, and explicitly excludes package download, which prevents a wrong tool choice.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by two short constraints. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a full output schema and complete annotations, the description only needs to convey scope and intent — and it does, including the visibility perspective and the explicit exclusion of package download. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself explains the slug with an example ('seo-lead') and a pattern. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one public agent') plus the exact payload it returns (jobs, helpers, skill names, AGENTS.md brief, canonical URLs). This clearly separates it from the list-oriented search_agents and from get_prompt/get_skill siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Read one public agent as a signed-in reader sees it' establishes the retrieval context and the 'public' qualifier implies private agents are out of scope. It also bounds expectations with 'Does not download the agent package,' though it never names search_agents as the discovery prerequisite for obtaining a slug.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.